How do you keep Gloria Allred from lying?People say that work is the curse of the blogging man.
Okay. People don't say that. I just made that up! But it's true. I've been jonesing to weigh in on the Gloria Allred/Jerry Brown hatchet job on Meg Whitman all day.
"Meg Whitman is exposed as a liar"
- Gloria Fibsalot
Poor Gloria has everything except proof, er, evidence. Ms. Allred has produced a letter from 2003 that purports to show that Meg Whitman had knowingly hired an illegal alien.
Ms. Whitman, speaking to the press made a statement, referring to her husband, that "we" had no knowledge of any such letter.
"Liar!" screeched Allred! She said "We"! Her husband's handwriting is on the seven year old letter. That suggests a couple of things. He may have simply forgotten. Please list every document you have read or signed over the last seven years, Ms. Allred. If you neglect to mention even one, we get to call you a liar, too.
Then, there is the possibility that Meg never saw the letter. She may have assumed that her husband didn't either. She may have been mistaken. Just because you're wrong doesn't mean you're lying. (There's at least one witless, liberal troll I know that uses the same faux logic: If a conservative is wrong or mistaken, he's automatically lying)
Or maybe she's lying. But, before you accuse someone of that, you need evidence. Much more than that thin Social Security letter that actually said the
opposite of what G-L-O-R-I-A asserted.
The letter said that there was a discrepancy, but not to take it as evidence of the employee's immigration status. The letter warned the recipient NOT to take punitive measures (such as firing them) on the basis of this letter.
It almost seems as if the very liberal Democrat attorney Allred is suggesting that if you get such a letter and you have a Hispanic employee, that you should automatically assume that your employee is an illegal alien. What was it they were saying about Arizona and papers??? Allred thinks that Whitman should have
profiled Santillan!
How very liberal of her!
That letter reminded me of a time when there was an error with my own SSN. One of my employers transposed two numbers in my SSN. Every week I would get a check with a check stub with my SSN on it. Or at least what looked at first glance to be my SSN. It wasn't. The first three numbers were correct. The last four numbers were correct. Only those weren't the numbers I focused on when I'd get my check. To a cursory glance it appeared correct. It was not.
Had I gotten a letter asking me about the discrepancy, I would have made the correction and sent it back. Should my employer have questioned my citizenship? Or was it okay because I am not Hispanic?
Last but not least, doesn't a lawyer have a responsibility to their clients to act in their best interests? I'm not a lawyer. I don't even play one on TV, but if I had a client who had committed numerous illegal acts, among them entering the country illegally, who was unknown to immigration officials, and unknown to law enforcement, do you think it would be in my client's best interest to not only have her expose herself via a public confession (not given as a part of any plea deal), and present the authorities with evidence to corroborate her confession? Would this constitute a
statement, or declaration against interest?All this makes sense only if Nicky Santillan is not the client. Her life and her freedom are now at risk. She could be subject to both legal penalties and possibly deportation. However unlikely it is that she would be prosecuted or deported, still the possibility exits. Is that how a responsible attorney acts? Sounds as if it is bordering on malpractice to me. Unless you really didn't care what happened to Ms. Santillan. If your purpose was to slander a political candidate a month before the election and sway the election in favor of your
real client. One who has no formal agreement. One steeped in the criminal process enough to use intermediaries and cut outs to keep your campaign above the fray. One who would be in a position to payoff in political patronage rather than cash. The legal fee a "contribution in kind" from an ideological fellow traveler.
Brown may not have his fingerprints on this, but it was designed to benefit his campaign. It's a sleazy, last minute attempt to give one candidate political advantage over another.
Cross posted at
Left Coast Rebel,
Say Anything
